1. ' The appellant is a firm of Chartered Accountants and its partners who practise profession of Chartered Accountancy are registered as members of the Institute of Chartered Accountants established under the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961. According to the Ordinance and the Rules framed thereunder any person desirous of qualifying as Chartered Accountant is required to undergo compulsory practical training with a firm of Chartered Accountants and also to appear in requisite examination conducted by the Institute of Chartered Accountants. The person obtaining training has been defined as 'student' under section 2(gg) of the said Ordinance. He has to enter into an agreement with the Chartered Accountant which regulates his training and is paid certain amount. The appellant is paying Rs,400 per month to such students. The respondent required the appellant to pay contribution under the Social Security Ordinance but the appellant objected to it claiming that the students are not their employees. The objection filed by the appellant against the demand made by the respondent was dismissed. An appeal filed by the appellant was also rejected. The appellant has filed this appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance which provides that an appeal shall lie to the High Court from an order passed by Social Security Board if it involves substantial question of law. The substantial question of law which arises is whether the student apprentice is employee as defined by the Social Security Ordinance.
2. ' The admitted position seems to be that the appellants are training article clerks who have been defined as student under section 2(gg) of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance. It is also an admitted position that the appellants are training them as required by the Ordinance and Rules, and paying remuneration of Rs,400.00 per month. Undisputedly the students are trainees who are getting practical training as apart of their course and for appearing in the examination of chartered accountant. The practical training involves carrying on accountancy work which is usually done in an office of the chartered accountant. Now in this background the question for determination is whether such trainee can be called employee for the purpose of payment of contribution under the Social Security Ordinance. The word 'employee' has been defined by section 2(8) of the Social Security Ordinance hereinafter called 'the said Ordinance' which reads as follows: "S.2(8) 'employee' means any person working normally for at least twenty-four hours per week, for wages, in or in connection with the work of any industry, business, undertaking or establishment, under any contract of service or apprenticeship, whether written or oral, express or implied but does not include-
(a) persons in the service of the State, including members of the Armed Forces, Police and Railway Servants;
(b) persons employed in any undertaking under the control of any Defence organisation or Railway administration;
(c) persons in the service of a local council, a municipal committee, a cantonment board or any other local authority;
(d) any person in the service of his father, mother, wife, son or daughter, or of her husband;
(e) any person employed on wages exceeding (one thousand five hundred) rupees per mensem;"
3. ' The word "wages" which has been used in this definition has also been defined in section 2(30) as follows: "S.2(30) 'wages' means remuneration for service paid or payable in cash or in kind to a secured person, not being less than. Remuneration based on the minimum rates of wages declared under the Minimum Wages Ordinance, 1961 (XXXIX of 1961), without taking account of deductions for any purpose, under a contract of service or apprenticeship, expressed or implied, and shall be deemed to include any dearness allowance or other addition in respect of cost of living and any payment by the employer to a secured person in respect of any period of authorised leave, illegal lockout or legal strike; but does not include-
(a) any payment for overtime; or
(b) any sum paid to the person employed to defray special expenses entailed by the nature of his employment; or
(c) any gratuity payable on discharge; or
(d) any sum paid as bonus by the employer;'
4. A bare reading of section 2(8) makes it clear that the word 'employee' has been extended to cover the persons working under contract of apprenticeship. Any person who is working for wages under any contract of service or apprenticeship except the persons who have been specifically excluded, will be covered by the word 'employee'. The definition of word 'wages' also does not in any manner conflict with this observation as remuneration paid to apprentice is also a wage. The learned counsel for the appellant in this regard contended that wage means the minimum wage fixed under the Minimum Wages Ordinance and as the same amount has not been paid under the agreement it will not amount to wages. Payment of any amount less than the minimum wage fixed by Minimum Wages Ordinance will not change the nature and character of such payment. It will only amount to breach of the Minimum Wages Ordinance if applicable to the employer. Reference can be made to 1989 SCMR 888.
5. ' The main contention of the learned counsel seems to be that as there is no relationship of employer and employee the remuneration paid does not fall within the category of wages and the article clerk cannot be termed as an employee. Admittedly he is an apprentice. The word apprentice has not been defined but has frequently been used in section 2(8) and 2(30).
6. According to Mr. Shahenshah Hussain the definition of 'apprentice' as given in the Apprenticeship Ordinance 1962 will not apply to this case. Apprentice has been defined as a person undergoing training through the system of Apprenticeship Ordinance. The meaning of apprenticeship given in the Apprenticeship Ordinance will not be applicable to the present case as here the apprentice has been accepted for training in terms of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance 1961 and the rules framed thereunder and not under the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962. The Chartered Accountants Act and the Rules do not define apprentice but student has been defined under Rules 2(gg) which means "a person who is or has been a trainee under a training contract with a member of the Institute entitled to train students under this Ordinance and the bye-laws made thereunder, and has not successfully completed the examination of the Institute." The word training has been defined as training under training contract with a member of an institute entitled to train apprentice/student under the Ordinance and bye-laws. In these circumstances the literal and dictionary meaning of the word apprentice shall be applicable. Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the Employees State Insurance Corporation and another v. The Tata Engineering & Co.; Locomotive Co. Ltd. And another AIR 1976 SC 66 where referring to dictionary meaning of apprentice and also the Halsbury's Laws of England Third Edition Volume 25 paragraph 877 it was observed as follows: "877. Apprenticeship.-- By a contract of apprenticeship a person is bound to another for the purpose of learning a trade or calling, the apprentice undertaking to serve the master for the purpose of being taught, and the master undertaking to teach the apprentice(s). Where teaching on the part of the master or learning on the part of the other person is not the primary but only an incidental object, the contract is one of service rather than of apprenticeship (t); but, if the right of receiving instruction exists, a contract does not become one of service because, to some extent, the person to whom it refers does the kind of work that is done by a servant, or because he receives pecuniary remuneration for his work. The payment of a premium is strong, though not conclusive, evidence that a contract of apprenticeship rather than of service was contemplated."
7. ' In Ballentine's Law Dictionary word apprentice has been defined as follows: "In the broad sense, a learner, one who by labour seeks to acquire the art or mastery of the craft he is employed."
8. ' The Supreme Court of India while making the above observation was considering the provisions of State Insurance Act where the word 'employee' had been defined which was completely different from the definition of the word `employee' as used in the said Ordinance reproduced above. For this reason so far the meaning of the word apprentice is concerned the observation correctly defines it but it cannot be applied to a case where the word apprentice has been specifically included in the definition of the word employees as in the present case. This was in the mind of the learned Judges of the Supreme Court of India as is clear from the observation that; "where the legislature intends to include apprentice in the definition of a worker it has expressly done so. For example, the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, which includes apprentice in express terms." Considering the definition of the word 'employee' as defined in the said Ordinance quoted above the observation of the Supreme Court of India will not be attracted as here the word 'employee' includes any person working under any contract of service or apprenticeship whether oral, express or implied. Therefore any person who is working as an apprentice will be included within the category of employee under the said Ordinance.
9. ' Mr. Shahenshah Hussain, the learned counsel contended that there is no agreement for employment and the apprentice has not been engaged as an employee but with a view to impart training as required by the Chartered Accountants Ordinance and the Rules framed thereunder.
10. The learned counsel has also produced photocopy of a training agreement as prescribed by bye- law 99 which inter alia provides as follows: "3. The trainee student covenants with the principal as follows:-
(a) That he (student) will throughout his term of service serve in his (Principal's) office on his (Principal's) business of public accountant and he shall not during such term of service practise as a public accountant or engage in any other business or occupation.
(e) That he will at all times well and faithfully serve the Principal as a Trainee Student.
4. (a) That the Principal shall pay the monthly stipend to the students as may be prescribed by Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan from time to time during the term of training with him."
11. ' The contract requires the trainee to serve but in fact it cannot be treated service in the general sense of employment. He is required to perform duties in the office for the purpose of learning, acquiring knowledge and practical experience. However for the purpose of the said Ordinance he is covered by the word employee. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Butt, the learned counsel has referred to Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Consolidated Sugar Mills 1989 SCMR 888 where discussing the meaning of the word employer and employee as defined in the said Ordinance it was observed as follows:- "The definition of 'employer' has two extremely relevant features for understanding its meaning and scope. Firstly, in the case of works and undertakings on behalf of the State, the contractor or the licensee carrying on the work has been made the employer. Secondly, 'in every other case' that is in which State's interest is not in that manner directly involved 'the owner of the industry, business, undertaking or establishment in which an employee works, has been made the employer. On these two features, without for the present examining the concept of employee, the respondent, being the owner would be the employer.
12. ' Coming to the definition of employee, the requirements are that (1) he must normally be working for at least twenty-four hours per week; (ii) he must be working for wages; (iii) he must be working in connection with the work of the industry, business, undertaking or establishment; (iv) he must be working under a contract of service or apprenticeship. The exclusions are for the present not relevant. What the High Court considered as deficient was that 'neither the amount of wages nor the terms and conditions on which these workers will be employed by the contractors is spelt out from these agreements'. These deficiencies were not the requirements of the definition. It was not the finding that no wages were at all paid by the contractor or that they were not employed on contract of service. All the terms of the contract have not to be established once the contractual relationship is established. There appears to be a mistaken impression that the contract of employment has to be between the owner and the employee. The definitions of employer and employee do not contain or exhibit any such constraint or limitation."
13. This safely meets the objection of the learned counsel for the appellant that the requirements of an employee as defined by the said Ordinance have not been fulfilled by the student. Once it is established that the student/trainee is an IL/ apprentice, whether any remuneration is being paid or not it falls within the definition of the word 'employee'. Therefore the demand made by the respondent' was legal and proper. The appeal is dismissed.